I was reading a post on social media decrying all the commercials about corporations pretending to care about us, and nodding my head. Then as I continued through the post it got more and more right-wingy, until finally the guy went into all caps and was screaming how there is a bill AOC is trying to pass in which there is a provision where the US will actually pay for planes to bring back illegal aliens who were convicted of felonies.
I was like, wow that sounds like some misinformation. So I looked it up and read through Tucker Carlson, Snopes, and finally the bill itself. According to Snopes, the bill would basically make it so you can’t deport immigrants for low level drug crimes, and even if it’s an aggravated felony, they have to have been sentenced to 5 or more years to be eligible for deportation.
On my skim through the bill itself, deportation cases could in fact be re-opened if anyone deported since 1996 would not have been deported under the rules in this new bill. Furthermore, there really is a provision that says these people would be transported to the US for further proceedings using government funds. The only thing I can really find that is different than what the right wing guy said, is that these would not have been “illegal aliens”, just people who were here legally but not full citizens, and committed crimes.
Am I understanding this correctly? I do think that there is MASSIVE need for immigration reform in this country (abolish ICE, no more kids in cages, etc). But, as much as I hate to say it, it does seem that the right wing guy was a little bit correct that this is going too far. So what, if an immigrant is a rapist or beats someone bad enough for facial reconstructive surgery, but only gets 4 years and 11 months sentence they can’t be deported? Seems unhelpful. I agree with the low level drug offenses though.
I apologize in advance for not citing exact locations in the bill where I saw things. I’ve been reading government documents for work all day and my head hurts.
If someone has been deported who in retrospect should not have been deported, we will pay the cost of returning him to the US whence we forcefully ejected him from. Is that what you are complaining about?
I wasn’t aware I was complaining. I was under the impression that I was presenting a discussion topic. I was also surprised to find that the right-wing guy was apparently correct that if the bill were passed, the government would pay to bring back people who were deported because they committed aggravated felonies. I also wondered if that was really a good idea.
Without getting into the details of the bill, the hurdles it would face getting passed are, to put it mildly, insurmountable. Congressional Democrats author lots and lots of bills. They never see the light of day. This is the case currently because the House of Representatives is being run by Republicans, Mitch McConnell specifically. So, the bill will not be scheduled for committee, the bill will not be voted on by the full House. The bill will not pass in the House. The bill will not be handed over to the Senate, etc. etc. etc.
So, why get worked up about it? It’s a proverbial fart in a hurricane.
Can’t quote the Op:
“So I looked it up and read through Tucker Carlson, Snopes, and finally the bill itself.”
Sounds like you got the order of importance right. :smack:
I didn’t say I find that objectionable. According to my reading of the bill, it is referring to people who would not have been deported under the standards of the bill itself. And the standard in the bill is that you can’t be deported for conviction of an aggravated felony that resulted in a prison sentence of less than five years. Are you disputing that? Because it is entirely possible that I misread it, as I said in my OP when I asked if I was understanding correctly.
I pretty much agree with everything else on there, and think it has some great ideas.
Do you see value in bringing back immigrants who were deported for committing an aggravated felony like rape or other violent crimes? And if so, why? I’m not trying to be combative here. I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts.
This is from the ACLU website. No mention oc conservative boogeywoman in their first two paragraphs:
I"n 1996, at the height of the “tough on crime” era, President Bill Clinton signed two laws that dramatically changed the criminal legal system and radically altered the U.S. immigration system. Just as the 1994 crime bill instituted unjust mandatory minimum sentences and ballooned the prison population, the immigration bills of that same era led to similarly disastrous consequences for immigrants — an explosion in the growth of detention and unfairly harsh punishments for immigrants, including mandatory deportations for minor crimes. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) resulted in today’s draconian immigration enforcement system. The system only expanded with the increased criminalization of immigrants, who are then funneled into the detention and deportation pipeline — often with little to no due process.
Reps. Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Pramila Jayapal, Karen Bass, and Ayanna Pressley, in December 2019, introduced the New Way Forward Act (H.R. 5383), groundbreaking legislation that reimagines what a fair and just immigration system looks like. The bill restores fundamental due process protections for immigrants by ending the mandatory detention of immigrants without the right to release on bail while a judge reviews their case — sometimes subjecting people to years of incarceration. The legislation also breaks down automatic pipelines to deportation from the criminal legal system. For example, the bill would end the 287(g) program, which allows local police to act as federal immigration agents, exacerbates racial profiling, and empowers sherriffs, as was the case with Joe Arpaio. The bill would also end the automatic deportation of people who have had contact with the criminal legal system. This legislation also decriminalizes migration by ending federal criminal prosecutions for improper entry and reentry to the U.S. Not only is this a waste of government funding, it also misguidedly treats migration as a criminal act. "
Thanks for posting that. As for the order in which I read things, that’s just where google took me. I do also like to see what the right wing people are saying, and see how it matches up with reality. I believe the origin of the right wing person’s ire, as mentioned in the OP, was probably from Tucker Carlson.
While looking up what the hell an aggravated felony is, I saw references to that 1996 bill, where they broadened the definition in order to deport more people basically. So it seems that is where this whole thing is coming from in this current bill.
As for the guy above who mentioned that this is never going to pass so why get worked up about it: yeah, I know. And I’m not worked up. Just thought it was an interesting topic because it seemed what the crazy-ass right wing guy said mainly matched up with reality, although it was lacking in the context which was provided by bobot.
I just see some right wing pearl clutchers lied about the bill, it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants being returned to the US. I don’t see what is left to discuss. The bill says the US would pay for airfare to undo wrongs of the past. That’s a fine idea.
In your OP you said it was going too far for violent criminals but not for low level drug criminals. So you must have a problem with the standards for return. Do you have some other problem with paying airfare? Is it ok to pay the airfare if you approve of the return?
OP:
“Then as I continued through the post it got more and more right-wingy, until finally the guy went into all caps and was screaming how there is a bill AOC is trying to pass…”
Conservatives are so afraid of her, it’s kind of amusing.
Yes I do see a difference between something like shoplifting or possessing a Percocet without a script, versus something like rape or aggravated assault. I’m not saying I couldn’t be convinced that flying rapists back (to use an extreme example, but a possible one) is a good idea, but on its face it doesn’t seem to be inherently undoing the injustices of the past, as you say.
I certainly see the value of reducing the strength of the “criminal justice to deportation pipeline”, and affording more rights to people in immigration court. I don’t like the fact that people get locked up for minor offenses like they do now, simply because they’re immigrants. I especially wish we were granting more people asylum. I’ve seen cases where people are suspected of being in a gang in their former country, when in reality they had no choice but to join up. Maybe they even did some violent crimes in that situation. And then they are deported to go back to the danger zone, instead of being granted asylum like they should have been. So perhaps this provision could help with that also, regarding the aggravated felonies thing.
I mean, we all know the bill is going nowhere. I originally was planning to refute the guy’s social media post, but found it was mostly factual, albeit framed in a panicky way. And then I started thinking about it.
I don’t expect much more out of our representatives. They aren’t very bright, they don’t really care so much about the issue as the political result, so it’s just not surprising to see a standard based on criminal sentence lengths which are essentially arbitrary. They wouldn’t have a clue how to define a standard that would lead to justice. So unless we choose the path of doing nothing legislatively as the Republicans have than we have to settle for this kind of half assed bill. If there were a chance of it going forward perhaps it would have been improved, I don’t know much about how it has evolved.
pssst – you’ve got the House and the Senate mixed up. McConnell, and the Republican majority, are in the Senate. The House is currently majority Democratic.
